Yes. This. It really is that simple.
Yes. This. It really is that simple.
Bruce Watson
Now I am getting more excited to keep learning. It is interesting that today's digital cameras are very complex, the software, etc. As well as PS and other post-processing software. You would think it a no brainer, that barring composition everyone could produce a perfect picture, every time. However, I more often than not see over-processed images, images with crappy lighting, shadow detail etc. I have also seen great digital images. But I think what is missing is what we are discussing here, not so much the zone system, but an understanding of light and how we want that light to fall onto the scene, etc and capturing an image as close to our vision as possible and not trying to pull it out of our a** after the fact. With film, you got basically one shot to get it right, whereas, with digital, you can take as many images as you want to get just one that is right (assuming you recognize it) and then know how to properly process it and print it.
I am guilty of over processing and not paying attention to details in my images when post-processing digitally as Coran has pointed out numerous times and I still tend to let opinion drive my image which I am getting away from.
Learning the zone system if nothing else, will teach you about light and how to view a scene, color or black and white and then help you determine your destiny for that scene, both pre and post capture.
My office is being upgraded so I can't do much till it is finished (hopefully this month), then I can get to developing and such again. In the meantime, I am going out when I can to take images and practice. One thing I have gotten better at is not taking a picture for the sake of taking it. Lately, I have gone out, set up been ready to release the shutter (dark slide out and everything) and then decided the light, etc was not worth a piece of film, so packed up and went home with no shot. Except maybe for an iPhone shot.
Zone V conversion? Guaranteed to be one stop off. Zone V was the shadier side of Zone VI.
Actually, I got a lot out of Fred Picker's writing, commentary, opinions and other "Fred-isms". It was clear from the beginning that FP mostly blathered about his opinions, frequently based on his lavish following of AA. Nevertheless, his enthusiasm was laudable and undeniable. Despite my frequent criticism, I credit him with bolstering my growing interest in photography in the early '80's and fondly anticipated his monthly newsletters.
In 1984 I purchased a then brand-new Zone VI-modified Pentax digital spotmeter (no less a mouthful to say now as it was then). I learned for B&W to place on zone III the darkest area where I wanted visible detail. Conversely for chrome film I learned on my own to place on zone VII the lightest area where I wanted to see visible detail. This also worked very well for Polaroid materials as I was using Type 52 a lot back then. I would still be if it were available (RIP).
Oh, and hey! It was because of FP's opinions that I tried and became enamored with Polaroid Type 52. As he claimed, it had wonderful highlights.
This is an old photo, c. 1993, on type 52. I'm sure I used that Zone VI meter for it as that was the only meter I had until recently. It's still my primary meter...
So, I guess I swallowed hook, line and sinker. But it was a fun time as is most any period of personal discovery.
I hope yours is, too.
BTW, it was also in 1984 when that meter accompanied me on a trip to Egypt and raised the eyebrows of more than one security official. Not so sure I'd try it today. Even carrying it locally in its leather belt holster concerns me (even though I live in an open-carry state - or maybe because of!)
I am going to say meter may have had the mod by Zone VI. It has the scale on it (which could be added by anyone). I don't recall seeing anything saying it was modified by them, but the dealer said it was. I will need to check that later. Either way, the meter is awesome.
Neil,Originally Posted by neil poulsen
I really do advocate testing one's materials; it's just that starting out with a lot of tedious testing often ends up missing the point, which is to understand the way film exposure and development works on an abstract level first. After getting things in the ballpark, refinements and testing seem to come a lot more naturally, plus there is more motivation to do the grunt work. I'm in need of a re-calibration myself at the moment; I have a batch of pretty thin negatives that I'm working hard to get decent prints from. Maybe this batch of PMK is weak, or my water here in Eugene is different than that in Vienna... I don't know. But, I digress...
I, too, use the method described by White, Zakia and Lorenz in The New Zone System Manual. I even made Zone Rulers for each development scheme I had at the time and carried them around with me in the field for years till I got the grey scales in my head. I make proper proofs of all my negatives and tweak my exposure and development based on them when I detect a consistent trend. New films and developers get the whole battery of tests.
You make an important point about stopping down two stops from the meter reading in order to place a shadow value correctly in Zone III. (Steven, take note of this, since it looks like you may be placing your shadows in Zone V, which is basically a two-stop overexposure...) My meters all have the Zone System labels on them, so I just align the EV opposite the zone (or even intermediate zone) I want to place it on. I believe Stevens meter has the same sticker, so it's not necessary to add or subtract stops from the meter reading.
And you've clarified how to determine whether N or N+/N- developments are necessary by observing where the chosen highlight value falls once the exposure has been determined from placing the shadow value. I was less than clear on this.
I might add to the discussion that choosing a shadow value to base the exposure on is a very important factor in correct exposure. Many just blindly place any old shadow on Zone III (and then develop to get any old highlight on Zone VIII). Often, however, I want more luminous shadows than Zone III, so I'll place the shadow on Zone IV or even Zone V (this latter for shadows on snow or white sand), which often leads to N- developments for an otherwise "normal" scene. This, however, gets me the look I want; the N negative would have been too contrasty.
And thanks to all for the positive feedback on my longish "spewed out" post above.
Best,
Doremus
Sorry to belabor a point which I've made before: the term shadow is somewhat variable.
For example, we may not always want to render a shadow falling on a black horse the same as a shadow falling on a white horse.
I picked up meter today and I am pretty sure it is an unmodified meter, but with a zone label attached to it. Here is a picture of it. Interesting that t hey only illuminate nate lower portion of scale, 8 and below.
Last edited by Steven Ruttenberg; 22-Mar-2019 at 21:34.
The illumination is only needed in low-light conditions - there'd be no point in lighting the higher end of the scale.
A Zone VI modified meter would have had a sticker on it from when the mod was done but it could easily have been removed or just fallen off. I have the same meter (but no Zone VI mod), I bought it new about 35 years ago.
Steve Midgley
Minor point... Doremus said 1/3 stop to 2/3 stop (not 1/3 to 2/3 speed). Nothing wrong with 1/2 speed that you find. That's close enough, and that's what people sometimes say they find and use.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks